Transcript

meeting of the Licensing Committee being held on the 5th of June 2024. This meeting is being webcast with the exception of any business that the committee resolves to exclude the press and public from because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by the Local Government Act 1972. This meeting is being held as a hybrid meeting with Licensing Committee members attending in person at the Council Chamber, County Hall, written or remotely via video conference. For transparency purposes I will identify which Licensing Committee members are in attendance and whether they are attending in person or remotely. So in the Chamber we have Councillor James, Councillor Tomlin, Councillor Feeley, Councillor Irving, Councillor Brian Jones and Councillor Delleth Jones and on the webcast we have Councillor Ellis and Councillor Keddie. Those attending remotely are kindly asked to mute their microphones unless they are called upon to speak. Licensing Committee members are also asked to have their video switched on throughout the meeting unless I specifically ask you to turn your video off to improve the quality of the audio link when you are speaking. You will be expected to restart your video once you have finished speaking. Please also refrain from using the chat facility as messages sent to all are visible on the webcast. Those present in the Chamber are asked to make sure that they speak directly into the microphone to improve the quality of the sound for those attending remotely and to aid transparency all of the meeting's business today must be conducted through the chair. So I'll start with apologies. We only have one apology today and that's from Councillor Chard. I also just forgot to say in the introduction there that we also have Councillor May attending via webcast but he's observing for the purposes of today's meeting. So I'll move on to declarations of interests. So members will be aware of the requirement under the council's code of conduct to declare any personal or prejudicial interests in respect of any business to be considered at today's meeting. Such interest should be declared now or as soon as the member affected becomes aware that they have a personal or prejudicial interest in today's business. All members declaring an interest are required to state clearly what that interest is and to advise whether it is a personal or a personal and prejudicial interest as defined within the code of conduct. Any members declaring a prejudicial interest are required to leave the meeting for the duration of the business and can take no part in the proceedings. Members with a personal interest only may take part in the debate and any vote. If a personal or personal and prejudicial interest is declared today that has not previously been disclosed and recorded the member concerned will be required to complete and sign a declaration of interest form which is either available from the committee support staff in attendance here today or online. Any declarations of interest? Okay so we'll move on to items three on the agenda. So the appointment of chair. Do we have any nominations for the appointment of chair today? Okay Councillor Tomlin. Thank you. I'd like to nominate Councillor Bobby Feeley for chair for this ensuing year. Bobby has steered us well this far and I feel is always well researched and informed when we come to committee and need her guidance. She maintains a professional relationship with the officers in all matters that come before her us. She is reliable and committed to the role and I would look forward to seeing her take us through this next year. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Tomlin. Do you have a second? Are there any other nominations for chair? Nope. Okay so only one person's nominated so we don't go to the vote so Councillor Feeley will be chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you members and thank you for voting for me for chair again. Thank you very much. So my first duty is to ask if there is a nomination for the vice chair of the committee. Brian. Yeah, I'd like to propose Councillor Hugh Irving. Thank you. Is there a seconder? Thank you. We have a seconder. Are there any other nominations? No. In that case, Councillor Hugh Irving, you are for the vice chair. Thank you chair. Congratulations on your appointment for another year. I should be glad to give you what support I can. So under urgent matters, I would like to just say a few words about our former lead member, Wyn Mullen-James who sadly passed away. This is the first time the committee has met since the sad passing of Councillor Wyn Mullen-James. I would like to pay tribute to Wyn for her years of service and dedication. Wyn was one of those rare people, and I mean that, about which nobody had a bad word to say. She was good at her job, intelligent, unruffled, stylish and above all was kind and thoughtful. We will miss her. Thank you members. For the next item are the minutes of the last meeting which were held on the 5th of March, and I will go through them first for accuracy and then the matters arising. So page 5, page 6, page 7, page 8 and page 9. And for accuracy, for matters arising, are there any matters arising on page 5, page 6? Yes, Councillor Tomlin. I'd just like to say that regarding the special procedures training which I attended, I did find it really informative and useful and will help me in my role as committee member, so thank you for that. Page 7. Any matters arising? Page 8 and page 9. Can we have a proposal? That's the correct record, please. Andrea and Alan. So item 7 is the Hackney Carriage Vehicles Table of Fairs and Charges and this is to update members on the review of the current tariff charges for Hackney Carriage Vehicles. Ian Millington, Head of Service, would you like to take us through? Welcome Chair, good morning everyone. The purpose of this report, as the Chair mentioned, is to update members on the changes to the tariff for Hackney Carriage Vehicles, commonly known as taxis, following some progress on the development of a fare calculator. So legislation allows the council to set a rate of fares in connection with the high-level Hackney Carriage Vehicle. Current tariff has been effective for a number of years and has been subject to an ongoing review since mid-2023. Following a resolution of the September Licensing Committee, officers consulted publicly on the proposal to increase the tariff and members may recall that consultation responses were mixed and as such members resolved at their December meeting to retain the current tariff pending development of a fare calculator. Officers sought to obtain usable data from current licensed drivers and proprietors to assist in populating this calculator. There's been a small response and where gaps in data have been identified, officers relied on other data to produce the calculator and methodology. The fare calculator has been produced by Guildford Council and has been replicated with permission at a number of local authorities across the country, including Denbyshire. No other North Wales authority uses this method. Members may wish to note that this calculator is recommended by a licensing consultant in 2021 and has been further supported as good practice by James Button, who people recall and will know from this committee, and is also the President of the Institute of Licensing and Chair of the Institute's Taxi Consultative Panel. The calculator aims to provide the cost of running a taxi with a mid-range vehicle whilst providing an average salary for the proprietor. Officers have prepared a detailed methodology and procedure, which is an appendix one, and a following population of that calculated the tariff produced is an appendix two, along with a comparison table for North Wales authorities. It's important to note that table affairs provides a maximum fare that can be charged for a journey. The proprietor can agree a lower fare with the passenger. It should be further noted that the table affairs only relates to fares wholly within the county of Denbyshire. Any journey that starts and finishes outside the county, an agreed fare that can be reached between the driver and the passenger, which can be more or less than the table affairs, but if no fares negotiated then the meter is relevant. The council needs the support as much as reasonably practical. The Hackney carriage trade, and given the rising cost of living in particular, the cost of fuel, is not unreasonable for the council to allow fares to be increased. A failure to do this reduces the ability for Hackney carriage proprietors to effectively run their business in a competitive marketplace, which may result in the reduction of overall number of Hackney carriages. Equal consideration should be made for the impact on any increase in fares other than travelling public, for the same reasons as Hackney carriage proprietors themselves. To offset changes in the marketplace and for Hackney carriage to retain their existing number base, they have the ability to charge up to the maximum amount in the Hackney carriage table affairs. This allows them to negotiate a reasonable price with the regular customers and retain their custom, while still enabling them to gain a margin of profit. So should members resolve to support an increase in the current fares, officers propose to go out to public consultation by publishing the required statutory notice for the variations of the tariff. The notice must appear in one local newspaper circulating the county and detailed the proposed new tariff. There is a minimum statutory period of 14 days. Members are advised that preparing the associated documents and process for consultation through the county conversation website will take some time to prepare, but is anticipated to be live within two months. The notice will specify how and where objections can be made, along with the specified date on which the tariff will take effect, if there are no objections. If no objections are received at that stage, the amended table of fares will come into effect after the expiration of the public notice, i.e. on the dates specified in that notice. However, should objections be received at this stage, they must be considered by the council for a final tariff and a date of implementation. Members should note that any final tariff will require a lead member delegated decision to ensure council meets its constitutional obligations. In summary, members have been asked to consider one of the following options, to retain the current table of fares or to increase the tariff in line with the tariff calculator subject to the statutory consultation. Some recommendations, members consider the contents of the report and comment as necessary on the methodology documents attached to the appendices, then authorize officers to proceed with a statutory notice with an implementation date of at least 14 days following the publication of the notice. Authorize officers to implement the set table of fares and the date specified in the notice, if no objections are received, or instruct officers to prepare a report for the licensing committee, if any objections are received from that statutory notice. Thank you chair. A very extensive report and lots of information in there. So members, are there any members would like to comment? Andrea. Thank you chair. The report reads to me as though we are increasing fares. And this is just the methodology behind it and which which is extensive and, and, and easily, easy to understand and, and good quality. But my question is to take that back in so far as do we have to increase fares? Do we have to look at this anyway, insofar as is there a genuine appetite out there amongst the drivers and type proprietors to increase it? Or are we duty bound to have a look at this every set period of time, please? Thank you. Okay. No, we don't have to increase the fares. We can keep them as they are. That's your, your option. If you so wish. The appetite is always mixed. I think from previous consultations with drivers and proprietors, the response has always been, you know, pretty mixed of for and against. What this, what this does is, is work out what the, what the cost of running the business might be. On average, let's be honest, it's not going to meet everybody's needs, you know, above that or below that. But on average is the cost that we would look at to run that business. And, and therefore proposing it based on that level of, of, of thought. Yes, please. We could come back. So there hasn't been a barrage of requests from drivers to get those prices up. I'm reading from that. And also is, is there in your opinion, professional opinion, a genuine risk of us losing taxi drivers in our numbers if we don't do this? Thank you. Given the number of drivers that we've got and the numbers that have made representations direct to us, then there isn't a barrage of, of, of drivers wanting this increase. But that's not to say that it's, you know, it shouldn't, it shouldn't happen. Are we in danger of losing drivers? I think our, our, and Nicky may be able to correct me on this, but I think our, our level of drivers, new drivers is consistent with other years and our level of numbers remain relatively constant. Yeah, thank you. Obviously we've visited this subject previously and a lot of points have been made. First of all, the customer, I don't think there's an appetite from the customer. To swallow another increase and certainly the elderly that sort of rely on taxis to go shopping and things like that probably wouldn't be best pleased about hearing an increase in this and an increase in anything to do with the daily lives. But I think the point's been made, I don't think there's an appetite to increase fares. And if you take the data that's in the pack and the breakdown of the costs of running a taxi business, whether that information's rock solid and a hundred percent accurate or not. But at the end of the day, it gives you a gauge on what, what it costs to run a taxi business. And then after that, the methodology is simple. All you have to do when you understand the costs is increase the amount of time and effort you put into running the cab. And if your overheads are covered at a baseline of X number of hours a week, if you increase the hours that you work over and above that, then you're into, I use the word pure profit, but then you're all you're into then is extra food costs, bit of extra maintenance costs. And so at the point in time we're at the moment, I wouldn't be in favour of putting taxi tariffs up. And that's based on that. I speak to a lot of people in, in the sunny real area that are involved in taxis and people that use taxis and now doesn't seem the time to do it. Point taken. I don't necessarily think there was a question in that, but I think I understand Councillor Jones's points and, you know, couldn't, couldn't argue against that feeling. Is it worth, excuse me, is it worth reiterating the point about how much it's likely to go up and, you know, in comparison to what it is now? Happy, happy to do that. I think in the appendix too, it's, it's that we, we are, uh, just barely reset and share where I call it back up. Um, I think cutting now, it's also the fact that it's a guide, a guide, um, that the taxi driver doesn't have to charge that maximum. I think, um, uh, it is, it is a guide. Um, it's the maximum fare that people can, can, can ask or can expect, um, from a, uh, a, uh, a taxi ride. Um, it's currently at £6. Um, the proposal from the, uh, the calculator was to go up to £6.94, um, obviously increases under a pound. Um, that would take us, um, in reality to the nearest in, in North Wales. Um, but I would, uh, point out that no other authorities use them, the, the, the same methodology as us, and we don't know what methodologies they use, uh, to form their basis. Um, overall, I think, um, in, in, in Wales, uh, we, we would, we wouldn't be the highest. Um, we would be, I think overall in the, the overall GB league, I think we would be midway. We would increase our, our level to, um, to mid table. Um, I think from 290 to 190, uh, maybe. Um, so, uh, we're not at the top of that charge by any stretch of the imagination. Um, but equally, um, you know, we, it is an increase and we would be the dearest in Wales, uh, from there understand from some authorities that, um, this would be the most recent review where there's have done theirs two years ago. I think one of them hasn't done this for many, many years. Um, but I think, uh, the others have two or three years ago, they've done their review from there. And this is the late to go. Councilor Ellis. Definitely. Um, thank you chair. Yes. I would reiterate what you said that this isn't a puzzle to increase taxi prices. It's the, an increase in the maximum price. And I think the only way for us to know how drivers to respond and owners is to consult with them. So I think it's very important that we do consultation with regards to the question raised about losing taxis and taxi drivers in the car run area where I represent, we haven't got any taxis that were years ago. So we have obviously lost our taxi services here. What I'm interested in Ian is to know what the consultation will involved because announcing something in a newspaper is obviously something that you've got to do on a statutory basis, but maybe these days, are you also going to put something online and allow people to respond online? Is it going to be a wide ranging consultation? Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Um, it will be a wide ranging. I think with the process we entered last time, uh, was to make it available on County conversation, um, which I think is mandatory for council consultations. Uh, I think last time as well, we, we engage with all the drivers and all licensees to let them know that was available. I think we also, um, contacted, um, uh, town councils and, um, relevant organizations for, um, you know, the Denver voluntary association, things like that, to let them know that it was available from there. So it will be, um, online. I think we might use some of our social media outlets as well to, um, to, to make it available through there. Uh, but once the link is available to the County conversation, then we'll be ready to publish the notice. So it won't be until we have the availability of the online, um, process as well. I think that was the, um, the, the, the question on the answer. Uh, yes, that, that answered my question perfectly. Thank you very much. And I think, um, yeah, I think it's important that we, you know, engage as much as we can online using social media and so on. So I'm really glad that you're going to be doing that. Thank you. Uh, thank you chair. There's a kind of, um, a feature in, um, accounts, isn't there that if you put off a rise, should we say hypothetically in the rates, um, that when you do bring it in, it has to be considerably higher than bringing it in stages. So do we, do we review the, or can you remind us how we review the fairs? Do we, do we do, do we do this annually or when we feel it's time to, because we've got a gut feeling there's time to, or when there's people starting to say, cause you know, there was a point where at one point when we used to get, or I used to get anyway, it was former chair of licensing, um, certain proprietors say, I want an increase, you know, and then you start a sort of a, a free for all. Um, and so I don't know whether you can clarify those points here. I think all of the above. Um, I think, um, there is no stats, uh, set time period to, to review, um, fairs. Um, I think it's, um, when we receive representations that they should be increased or, um, but also, you know, you can, you can set a time period yourselves if you want to review those, uh, there's, as I said, there's no fixed statutory timeframe. It's just that you may do this when you, when you feel it's necessary to do so. Generally, I think over the years, um, well, many years ago, we would, we, we didn't do anything until somebody came forward on that. And then this is the response from, uh, the, the latest one that had been some representations. Um, and, um, I think when it was reviewed 12 months ago, 18 years, it was an agreement to revisit it and within 12, you know, within 12 months. So this is part and parcel of that. If I go back chair, it's very good to, to see this coming forward for discussion today, rather than some sorts of knee jerk reaction, which we've had in the past that we're dealing with this morning in a fairly measured manner. And it's good to see that there's a methodology as well, man. Um, and that that's good as well. I'm not a great user of, of, of taxis. Um, it does seem to me that on the other cases I've used them that they're quite expensive, you know, and I would, I would kind of have a gut feeling is, do we have to put these fares up? Um, but then do we make a decision based on my and other members gut feeling, or do we actually go to a consultation? That's the problem. Cause I guess consultations cost money. Um, we don't want to consult if nobody wants to change and start a debate off and start a hair running, if you like. Um, so I don't know whether there's a view on that from yourself or, or members. Um, it's true that there is a cost to a consultation. I think, um, you know, the, um, publication of a public notice doesn't come cheap. Um, but it's a way of, of understanding, uh, what thoughts, um, um, representations might follow. I think, um, you know, we've consulted informally with, with people before. Uh, and then, um, if we, if we continue with that, we never get to the end to be able to implement anything. So, um, this, this will enable us to, um, I think, uh, get to a point where if there are, if nobody objects, then it's seen that, you know, it's the right thing to do other on the flip side. Uh, there's a requirement that when people do object to this, or if there are objections, um, then, um, this, those objections need to be reconsidered fully, uh, by the council. Uh, and then they can then decide from there whether to implement fees at that level on a different level or do nothing. All right, Hugh. Thank you. Yes. I'm just trying to get a feeling. I don't know how other members feel. Is there a, is there a demand out there from the industry? We need to put our fares up. Fuel costs have gone up and whatever else we all guess, run cars. Um, uh, uh, uh, and is the, is the kind, are we getting any pressure to put fares up because I'm not actually detecting any at the moment. So I don't know whether other people have got a different experience. Is that, are you wanting Ian to come back on that? Well, yes, then I'll shut up because I think, I think, um, it goes back to that. There is some requests to make it, but you're given the, you know, the, the, the, the number of drivers and proprietors that we've got, it is a small amount, but that, that, you know, I go back to saying that that doesn't mean that the rest don't want it, but equally, it doesn't mean that the rest do want it. You know, I have to say that from the report that the, the methodology and the feedback from that, there was, um, uh, a limited amount of responses, um, direct from that. Um, you know, we had the, um, you know, a good conversation with proprietors, um, in a small working group. Uh, but after that, you know, the, the, the, the feedback that we had from, um, other proprietors, when we tried to open it up to everybody to understand what, what information we needed to, um, to inform us for the methodology that we didn't get an awful lot of response to it. It is a difficult one, isn't it? Because we're trying to look at both sides. We look at the driver's side, but we're also looking at the user's side. I thank you very much for all the work that's been undertaken going through this methodology. This isn't work that happens in just five minutes. This has been a substantial piece of work, so I'd like to thank you for that. I feel that this is a step forward personally, to be able to come to a situation where we consider the needs of our drivers and we make sure that they are able to make a living and maintain their cars and vehicles and that we've got a bank of taxis that are in good condition and suitable for our residents. But we've also got to consider how it impacts the users. So our role is in the middle. It's not for, we're not, the only thing I'm concerned about, it does look, as Councillor Hugh Irving has looked, said already, if we delay too much, at one point there will be a major jump up because the cost will have increased so much. So that's a concern of mine if we leave it too long. The specific point for me is that this is a maximum price. We're not telling taxi drivers you've got to charge this. What we're saying is you can't charge any more than this. So in one way, if drivers feel that they're not getting as many users, they can be more competitive by charging less on those who do use their taxi services. So this means that we do make sure that there is competition that's still in the process. It's not as if we're forcing these prices. One question, I've got two questions actually. This sets us higher than other local authorities, neighbouring local authorities. Do we know when their fees were last reviewed and do they follow a process and are their prices going to go up as well and when was the last increase? Do we know that? And maybe I'm showing my naivety here but I see within the methodology that you've put a price in for cost per litre, 157 to give a fluctuation of plus five. Do taxi businesses, are they able to reclaim VAT or do they have to pay VAT at the pump? Does that? Are they able to reclaim some of the VAT on their fuel or what they pay for their fuel? Okay, I'm not a VAT expert by any stretch of the imagination but I imagine that VATs reclaimable are for VATable businesses as it would be in general for all VATs. The question for the when were they last reviewed across the North Wales authorities, we have done a quick run through those and those were done two years ago, four years ago, one year ago and one before 2010. So some of them have been done recently or fairly recently but we would be the most recent from there and one authority hasn't done this for many years. The reason I was asking for the VAT was if I understand correctly the price of the pump, there's a high percentage of that is VAT so I just wanted to know whether that was taken into consideration when doing the calculator and that doesn't inflate the prices that we take that into consideration? No what we tend to do is just use the AA fuel published fuel rates for the last available one was March when we did the the methodologies it's probably moved on to April by now but so it may change from that but you know what we would look at is doing a you know an available month date to look at that review that cost. Alan did you want to come back or not come back ask a question? Yes, thank you chair. Dallas has really covered all the all the area that I wanted to cover really and very far more succinctly than I would have been able to do it so I'm quite happy to leave it as it is. Thank you chair. Hello Joan. Thank you chair yeah I want to thank you for the report it is it is very comprehensive but I am struggling with this chair and I did need and hope that the committee do show a good lead on this. As a taxi user chair I suppose I should be declaring an interest but as a taxi user I don't think that there is a huge flavor in the industry for this for this rise but looking at all the issues that have been put into the melting pot I'm not sure really I haven't made my mind up really myself I do need a clear steer this morning as to whether we are saying loud and clear yes we are in favor of this or not I myself is struggling and wouldn't want to impose this on the user or indeed on the companies so I will of course make and vote but I do feel there isn't a flavor chair as I've said for this in the industry and that's all I needed to say this morning thank you at this moment in time. Thank you chair. Thank you thank you Joan I don't think that needs an answer does it. Yeah I've got a question now so if we look at the new tariff that's proposed the first mile is £4.87 and the mile thereafter is 2.07 a mile and the current tariff is £3.50 for the first mile so there's a gap there and if you can do it mentally and the mile thereafter is £2.50 a mile so if we do the costing on a two mile trip we end up at £6.94 on the new tariff and on the old tariff it's £6 so we're 95p to the good if you agree with that if you can run through that and clarify that but then if you move to a nine mile taxi trip and you calculate up at the new tariff £4.87 for the first mile and £2.07 for the for the miles thereafter you come up with a figure of £21.43 yeah but when you apply the current tariff to that nine mile trip you come up with a figure of £23.50 so there's a gap there of minus £2.07 so my question is have I read that right because the more miles you do you're actually going to be worse off as a taxi operator and at 5.1 in the report it says we should be doing everything we can to protect etc etc so the question is am I right with them figures the new tariff versus the old tariff the mile thereafter at the moment is £2.50 a mile and we've dropped we're proposing to drop it to 2.07 pence a mile so when we go through to 10 mile taxis and I'll stand corrected you actually end up losing and the worst case is if you go to 50 miles at those rates at the proposed new tariff you're you're sort of £19.70 worse off so the question is am I right or am I wrong can you clarify that Ian I would yeah thanks right and I think firstly the the two mile rate is the one that's standard across country to to to judge a um a tariff buy for the league table as I mentioned before um I haven't done any any calculations you know beyond that two mile um you have relied solely on the calculator uh to um to come up with those figures from there I think the previous tariffs were based on a fixed figure that we tried to put in um but I I couldn't argue with this point in time to to say that it's that that Brian's figures are that are incorrect or or he's he's ready wrong I don't think you know that the calculator is based on the the figures I've produced by that by that um by that method Andrea did you want to come back thank you chair just just a final thought really from me I just feel as though as with my colleagues there just is no noise from drivers to put the rate at this I think if if they wanted the rates that we'd know about it you certainly would and we probably would as committee members and there's just no noise which which which to me I'm sure taxi drivers are of the ilk to shout out if they thought something wasn't quite right um so to that end and the fact that perhaps their concern is more of losing customers because of the increased price versus making a bit more money because the net result is is is not um to their benefit if those customers drop off anyway um so my my uh stance in summary of this is that we uh remain with the status quo thank you so is does anybody else want to Joan you've still got your hand up is that just a historic no chair it wasn't historic I'd just popped it up just to give some context to this as a taxi user could I say that I many people know that I live on promenade at splash point um all days and the shopping area that I use quite regularly is that the other end of the promenade at the um harbour bridge area uh at the uh shopping area there as a taxi user I can say I've paid as little as three pounds to go from my house along the promenade to the harbour shopping area um and I've paid as much as seven pounds so that gives the flavour that the operators charge their tariffs accordingly because as I say I paid as little as three pounds to go from a to b and I have had experience that within the last six months the charging varies between seven pound which is the most I paid to three pound fifty so I really can't support the the increase chair I feel thank you ian do you want to make a point on that because that sounds too much doesn't it I know it's difficult to say without the you know you don't know the the actually exactly okay yeah some uh you know it's fair to say that the the meters will probably be set the to the maximum rates I'm sure that some some um operators will will charge that amount but then some might find it difficult to operate when they've got multiple drive drivers Alan can you yeah thanks chair are we are we making too much of this at the moment these are these figures that we're proposing potentially are advisory aren't they they're the maximums that can be charged so taxi firms can actually charge below that if they want and it appears from what um Councillor Butterfield has said that that could well be the case anyway we don't have that evident anecdotally so even if we put we agree to put them up now to the next level there's no necessity for taxi firms to to go to that level they could still stay at the level that they currently are using so I just I'm a bit confused as to why we like the others why we need to put put them up but going back to Hugh's point in the future if we do end up being in a position we to put them up the jump could be greater so I just wonder whether we leave them as vote on these as they are and and go whichever which way um and and take that or vote against it completely and just leave them and say I'm I say I'm very confused about it because that makes it does it makes sense I think because most people are are saying they're not sure that that it's the right thing to do or maybe it might be the right thing to do because if we leave it it could end up with bigger increase Delith do you want to have a look with that in mind what's been most of us it really is that we look at if we're unsure whether this is what we should do and any taxi firm can charge below the figures being suggested here but what this triggers is that we go out to a full consultation with the public so there's an opportunity for taxi drivers and users to tell us exactly how they feel at the moment well I'm not sure we haven't got a strong feeling about this but if we do come out to come to official consultation with the public we will get the information we need and then it'll come back to us before a final decision is made am I right in saying that if there are responses to the consultation does it go back to this committee okay I suppose just in response to Alan's point that he made that taking back to the report that we're asking your members to consider retaining the current fees as they are or to go out to consultation in line with the the calculated figures so that sort of leads into does an answer to tell us that that yes if this goes to a statutory consultation period it has to be a minimum of 14 days we can make it longer if we so wish from there and if there are representations then that's the time to be making them and if there are any representations it has to be reconsidered by the council that through the probably this committee from there and if it's not there your decision then sorry your process then will require a decision at that committee at that hearing to either implement the fees as as as set out or to change them or to do nothing you know so you cannot you will always have the final say in whether the fees are done or not Ryan you've got more talk yes so roughly how much will this consultation cost at a time when we're getting criticized for spending money not wisely yeah I think I think the notice would cost a few hundred pounds you're probably talking in the region officer time 1500 2000 pound Nikki do you want to offer a bit of light on the subject thank you chair all I was going to to mention is that to be able to go out to consultation members would have to support the proposed rise the proposed table affairs it's not we'll just go out to consultation to see what what what what the the flavor of the the members of the members of the public and trade are it is you'd have to be supporting because if we do get no representations those fees will then fares will come into into force thank you so are members clear now I think what we've got to decide is do we just retain it and leave status quo or do we go with the increase the tariff in line with the tariff calculator subject to statutory statutory consultation which has you've outlined Nikki so what are you are you putting your hands up to speak oh right okay okay sorry could you just wait for one moment please that I'm not sure who you are yeah right yeah so unfortunately not like planning committee is nice to say committee there's no right to speak by members of the public it is at the chair's discretion and but I think that I think it's fair to say there's been a fair debate and you know if members do do vote it will go out to consultation so you'll have your right to respond at that stage I think in interest of fairness I don't know either way in in terms of where you sit on this but there would be no counter views I think in interest of fairness I think the debate's been good but it is at the chair's discretion I'm I'm not prepared to take that in the meeting at this moment in time I'm sorry I think Nikki's just it's a point there that I hadn't considered and makes me more in favor of staying with the status quo because if if we go to consultation which is going to cost several a number of thousands of pounds and it just so happened that nobody made any representations then the increase would be implemented and then there might be a howl that it was not necessary or not not what not wanted I'd be inclined I think to move that we stay with the status quo and review the situation again in the light of whatever representations come forward over the next 12 months is there a second if that chair I had my hand up um uh before Hugh spoke sorry and I was going to move um that uh we we we just leave the status quo um and retain the current figure uh and that was what I was going to move so I'm happy to second what Hugh and I'm happy to second that thank you Joan can we vote on that then please so yeah I'm sorry can I can I is it okay if I say something before we vote right go in it yeah no I just wanted to respond to what Hugh said and I I think um I mean personally I would see if there was a wide-ranging uh consultation and there were no responses that would indicate that people were in favor of the change I think um you know that that's the norm with consultation isn't it I think I think as no I think as we're in the middle of the vote would you would you like to take the vote on what Hugh has proposed and Joan has seconded members give a show of hands I'm just going to make a note sorry can you can you please um put into words what we're voting on yeah so this is a member this is voting to retain the current table of fairs so we're yeah if I just be clear there so that so it would be that the members have considered the contents of this report and commented as necessary on the methodology documents attached in the appendices that members vote to retain the current table of fairs and instruct officers to prepare a report for the licensing committee to be brought back within 12 months is that what the proposal is yes can we have a show of hands and members clear what they're voting on show of hands so that's one two three four I'm just making a note so this is four so Councillor Butterfield's for Councillor Ellis uh not we're not being funny I'm against Brian go ahead seven and two yeah okay members we've got seven in favor and two against so that's been passed so the the current table of fairs has been retained thank you to come back in a year to come back in a year right so we're moving on now to the next item which is the review of requirements for wheelchair accessible vehicles nikki thank you chair okay this is for members to consider reviewing the existing requirements for wheelchair accessible vehicles and I'll refer to them as wafts throughout the throughout my report um licensed by the council members requested officers to review the current process for licensed wafts for new and renewal applications due to the reported lack of availability of such vehicles in dambusha the current hackney carriage and private high policy has a number of small amendments since 2017 with the most recent being 2022 when members resolve to retain the current age limits for all licensed vehicles the existing policy condition places an age restriction on vehicles whether new or for renewal that all new to fleet vehicles must be a maximum of five years old and any vehicles reaching the age of 12 years old must be removed members will also recall that the upper age limit for vehicles to be allowed to stay licensed had grandfather rights originally until 2022 however these rights have been extended twice as a result of um covid and the effects on the licensed trade and will finally come into effect next month currently wafts are required to meet the same licensing criteria as any other vehicle however the cost associated with the wafts are much higher than a non-wheelchair accessible vehicle a review of the current process is supported by dambusha school transport and they have highlighted the need for additional wafts to carry out school contracts officers and members of the have been approached by a small number of the taxi trade to review the process to make it more affordable to license whilst by either removing the upper age the age limit for new vehicles or relaxing the upper age for renewal applications um at 4.6 the report the department of department transport best practice guidance which all welsh authorities should have regard until the welsh government have published the statutory guidance does not recommend setting um age limits but instead consideration should be given to imposing emission standards as a minimum standard the current position with regards to the welsh government's um taxi bill a white paper is that they may be able to consult on their proposals for national standards which will include maximum vehicle age or emissions later this year however they do encourage local authorities to continue adapting and involving their existing policy members may wish to consider whether it will be appropriate to remove the minimum and maximum age limits for wafts just wafts and introduce a minimum emission requirement such as euro six standards that's been the highest standard to date as a as recommended by the department for transport older vehicles tend to have higher emissions because they use less sophisticated emission control technology than newer vehicles and may be built to less stringent emission standards um of the report details that the 411 of the report details the euro standards for all vehicles first registered after 1992 with the latest being euro six for vehicles registered from september 2015 therefore vehicles up to nine years of age will fall into the highest emission standards discussions have taken place with our fleet services on our review and their initial comments are that they can't see any valid argument as to why any wafts should be given any different terms and conditions to any other licensed vehicles and they also do have concerns that if allowances are made for wafts they may open the door for license holders to request a review of the minimum standards for all vehicle applications as i said previously passive to transport do support an increase on the number of wafts available for their learners 4.16 of the report details the number of wafts currently licensed in age order and should members consider proposing implementing euro six emission standards as a minimum licensing requirement for wafts it would allow all existing license wafts registered from september september october 2015 to remain licensed past 12 years of age with possible further testing requirements it would also encourage more new applications as a current euro six emission standards would allow a nine-year-old waft to be licensed should members support further further testing requirements for wafts to have reached the age of 12 years of age this could involve an additional compliance test at an approved testing station of the license holder's choice it will be proposed that a compliance test will be required at four monthly intervals and we only have two at the moment two tests a year at denver dembershire fleet services 4.19 of the report gives an example of the cost of a five and an eight nine-year-old ford tawnya which is the most popular waft currently we've got licensed in denver and there's approximately ten thousand pound difference there that's just been taken from a internet search from a reputable trader members have also had the option to consider requiring all new applications for a hackney carriage vehicle to be a waft this could however could have both a negative and positive impact moving forward as it could increase the amount of wafts licensed as hackneys which can only be seen as positive however it could deter the trade from submitting applications for new hackney carriages and instead apply for private high vehicles and that could mean less wafts available on the ranks which could disadvantage wheelchair users whilst all the information above is relevant officers are mindful that the welsh government review is still ongoing which is likely to include some further restrictions on either age vehicle age or emissions however the shortage of licensed works wafts do need to be addressed and it is therefore recommended that members consider one of the following options they can either make no amendment to the current licensing requirement for wafts meaning that they that they are licensed in the same same basis as a regular vehicle consider removing the current age requirements for wafts and replace it with all wafts must meet euro six emission standards with an additional compliance test per year or consider consider b above without any additional compliance testing or d consider that all new applications for a hackney carriage vehicle license be wheelchair accessible so it's therefore recommended that given considerations outlined above members note the contents of the report and in the first instance authorize officers to instigate a consultation exercise with all interested parties on options five one a today and report back to a future meeting on the consultation on the results of the consultation thank you chair thank you nicky well that seems fairly straightforward on this one but has any have any members got any comments angia thanks chair um i find it difficult to comprehend that we're talking about different standards of testing and uh on vehicles based on who they carry um i don't think that there should be a difference across across the industry just because there's maybe a shortage of that type of vehicle which there absolutely is a chronic shortage i know that um i just i just can't i i can't comprehend that we're talking about different standards just because we need to try and get more of that type of vehicle out there the standards should be the standards across the board i don't feel that there should be a difference and i think that was the sentiment of drivers within the industry from what i could gather as well um it should be all or nothing all the same or uh to my to my mind thank you do you want to come back on that nicky um justify it yeah there would be additional um testing um requirements for the what those wav vehicles so they would have um three compliance tests a year if that's what members agreed opposed to two compliance tests a year so they would be they would be required to have a test every three months to some extent uh nicky has allayed my fears by what she has just said but i feel the licensing team over the last years that i've been associated with licensing there's been a huge effort to improve standards of vehicles there was a terrible period uh not not in recent years i hasten to add when there was some absolute rubbish on the road in my area um and you know we slowly slowly we've upped the standards up the standards up the standards and it's a credit to the licensing team so i was about to say i was going down uh andrea's line that i didn't want to see anything that would make those standards slide back but now of course you said that you would want an extra tests with wavs as you call them um i still kind of think that you're either carrying passengers or you're not uh whether they require um a a you know whether they use wheelchairs or other mobility aids to get about or they don't um private high vehicles can be quite old can't they am i right in saying that the same age they have the same same um age restrictions for private high vehicles as hackney carriages so what's so which is what it's minimum to go on to fleet it's five years of age yeah and um as of the first of july all vehicles over 12 years of age have to come on we'll have to come off oh i got a feeling that um some of these mini buses that do airports and things like that might be it might be a bit older but anyway obviously that i'm wrong so that's that's fine i don't know where my comments take us take us forward i don't think they do except that i just want to see the best possible standards for the safety of the customers and general road users i mean well as i see it it you know we are are going to go out and consult on whether or not there are going to be uh more stringent regulations here um so we would make a decision based on what that consultation comes back with that's the way i read it i may be wrong am i wrong um unless chair you decide to leave it as it is and make no amendment then we won't be going out to consultation anybody else want to come in the importance is the standard of the checks that we undertake on the vehicles on the road and that that's really important that we maintain those standards i take it that that's why the is to add an additional level of tests if we agree to go over the 12 years this note was this about whether there's going to be a limit on the age of that type of vehicle at the moment it says that they've got to be taken off the road at 12 years are we suggesting moving that to 15 years in order to ensure that that helps us i think with this we're looking at the sufficiency to meet the need and at the moment what we're hearing is that we haven't got enough of these types of vehicles for the need out there especially for school transport and that's a really important factor isn't it in this discussion that we're having what's to say that a 13 year old car that has the additional tears be equally as safe as not safer than a 10 year old car that hasn't been tested so regularly so that's the dilemma i'm facing you know being measuring those two things against each other so i think it's important we do ensure that we have got sufficient vehicles for the need of the schools but that that's done in the safest possible way do you feel that i think this level of testing would be enough to ensure that vicki thank you um your first question about the 16-year-old vehicle being on the fleet if you went with a euro six standard it would allow allow a 16-year-old vehicle to stay on fleet once it's on it can stay till it's because it stays the euro six standard stays with the vehicle um it doesn't it doesn't change euro standard will will will will probably have a euro seven standards in in years to come but to meet euro six once a vehicle has been um given that standard it stays that that that euro standard so you're a 16 year old vehicle 17 year old vehicle will be able to stay on because if that's what members felt was appropriate um then it would be euro a euro six standard vehicle um school contracts um there are a shortage of wheelchair accessible vehicles they are in need of more so at the moment it's not meeting the needs for our learners um so they would support more vehicles to be on our to be to be licensed and i can't see any other way in increasing the numbers other than our changing our testing our licensing requirements does that answer your questions ian yeah i just wanted to say that um it's recognized that if we went with euro six standard that there is um the potential that the age of vehicles would increase so to offset that to try and meet the safety requirements that we like we felt that um an additional um round of compliance testing would work towards that um i guess you know on reflection with that now and thinking what um you know what andrea said earlier on that's um you know there's an increase now on costs for um wheelchair accessible vehicles um to get on fleets and to remain on fleet i having additional costs you know is this then impacting on the vulnerable in society who have to use those vehicles as well recognizing that most of them will be acne carriage and can only charge the maximum amount um in in that fair um there may well be um you know an additional cost there so that so we'd need to weigh that up but from a purely a fleet point of view we were looking at to inc to to relax the age limits because that's the problematic areas that they can't find cheap enough vehicles to put on fleet to start and again and retain on fleet that we need to open up to any sort of vehicle to a certain degree well it seems sensible that emissions are the one um to to consider that at euro six uh but we felt that we needed then to make sure that the safety was paramount as well and the only way of really ensuring that was adding in new testing regimes simply for those vehicles under that regime thanks for that clarification that does make it um a lot clearer it has to be slightly different on wheelchair accessible vehicles although it's the same high standard it's a slightly different standard that's required so i think we're not saying it's better for wheelchairs or or worse for wheelchairs we're we're saying that it's got to be of an appropriate high standard whether it be a normal taxi or a wheelchair adapted one so to me that makes much more sense andrea did you want to come back yeah i think obviously the problem here is the the supply of wafts and should our consultation not be to go out to the industry for suggestions on how we increase that supply as far as you know maybe like in planning a new housing estate has to have a percentage that are affordable could it not be that a fleet provider has has to have a statutory minimum percentage that are wafts you know are there other ways that we can look at this other than trying to tweak with what we've already got you know thinking out of the box of other ways to encourage more wafts into into the industry rather than trying to give it a slightly better favorable easier criteria on the um licensing conditions and the um testing of the vehicles i still feel that no vehicle should be any different be it a waft or a normal taxi on the licensing criteria i think it has to be different in terms of the physical makeup of it um but i think the standards are still i mean you may say uh what i'm going to say i don't know so perhaps i'll do yeah i think i think the um you know you're right the standards need to be high and remain high however we get there um i think we're always open to suggestions um and i think this you know the consultation may well be an opportunity to say well what do you think you know i'd you know give us some suggestions that we might end up with a hundred different suggestions and start having to wade through those but um you know equally you know it does give us some idea rather than than us trying to come up with a plan to try and um you know give the incentive for um proprietors to go out and make that um uh cost commitment to to get in the way of knowing that it's going to remain on fleet and and be safe and suitable uh throughout its life on fleet so i think you know a consultation should never be a um yeah if uh uh never not be a free text box at the end um so we may get some suggestions from that um which may be the way forward right right then members um i think i'll go to the recommendation um which is given the considerations outlined above members note the content of the report and in the first instance authorize officers to instigate a consultation exercise with all interested parties on options five brackets one a to d and report back to a future meeting on the results of the consultation can i have a proposer alan seconder please paul paul keddy so can we vote on that members all in favor thank you he is this you again for the forward work program yes thank you thank you chair um so it's to advise members of the priorities of the licensing section um together with an update on the agreed work program for the committee for 2024 2025. um in drafting the forward work program offices have considered the policies relevant to the licensing committee and the review dates of these policies along with any potential legislative changes being proposed by welsh and central governments due to some significant changes to the staffing structure within the licensing section which will have some effect on existing staff workloads the priorities of reviewing some of the planned policy policies have been rescheduled within the work program and a revised forward work program could be found at appendix a and it is recommended that members note the contents of the report and it's further recommended that members consider and improve the updated forward work program detailed at appendix a thank you chair any comments on the work work program anybody want to say anything andrea thanks chair i'd be interested to hear what the actual impact is of staff changes and the structure within the team and how they are going to um cope with workloads insofar as they are high now um and the impact on the forward work program and everything we've discussed today as well really it is a small team um and to lose a significant member can't go unnoticed thank you i don't know whether that's an inappropriate question or not can i ask yeah i think it's something that we can pick up outside the meeting i'm just conscious given the small team if we start going into details and potentially individuals are going to be identifiable but it's something that we can absolutely pick up outside this thank you thank you andrea should we go to the recommendation i can't see any hands up um it is recommended that members note the contents of the report and it is further recommended that members consider and approve the updated forward work program detailed at appendix a for 24 25 thank you alan and hugh just before we close can i just draw attention to the fact this is ian's last meeting as he's going to be retiring so can we thank you for all the work over the years that you've done with the licensing committee and wish you well for the future thank you chair thank you members um i'd like to echo the comments back that i'd like to thank you for the support and guidance that you've offered over the years that have been involved and i wish you luck in the future thank you members that's the end of the meeting